Are you a resident of California and presently planning to file for Social Security Disability benefits? Well then, you have to know if you are eligible for the benefits first.

Here are several of the specific requirements in the state of California that you need to comply with in order to qualify as a disabled person and be eligible for benefits.

* You must prove that you did not have the capacity to carry out any kind of "substantial" work because of a mental or physical condition. This condition must have persisted or would have expected to persist for a year or more. This condition may also be expected to have fatal consequences.

* For a work to be considered "substantial" you must have earned at least $780 monthly.

* Your mental or physical condition must have affected or impaired you severely subsequently preventing you not only from performing your usual job but also other occupations even with due consideration to your work experience, training, education and age.

Your tax contributions directed towards the Social Security trust fund is the base factor for your eligibility. By having paid tax contributions, this means that you are insured. You will have to earn credits depending on the age when you have incurred a disability. Credits are required of you in order to become eligible to receive disability benefits.

* Before you have reached the age of 24, you must have gained six credits over a period of three years or 12 quarters.

* If you are between 24 - 30 years old, then you must have already gained credits for "half of the calendar quarters" during the time after you have reached 21 years old and until the time you became disabled.

* After 31 years old, you must have already gained work credits for 5 years or about 20 quarters in the calendar during a period of 10 years or 40 calendar quarters. This ends at the time or after the quarter when you have become disabled.

These are the salient points you must be aware of, before ever you start your application for Social Security Disability benefits.

Aside from these, you must also have a proper understanding of the Social Security's system in handling claims for Social Security Disability benefits. 1. Everything starts with your initial application - with this, you are initially starting your claim for disability benefits. During this first step, it is a disheartening reality that 75% of all of the applicants find themselves denied.

Usually, the reasons for denial are usually based from the forms and medical records you have included supporting your claim. If you find that you are among this percentage, do not give up easily. You have to file for an appeal within the next 60 days after you have received the decision.

2. Reconsideration - this is the second step that you have to undergo, but you must still brace yourself for a denial. 82% of claimants for reconsiderations are denied. There is still recourse for you if you decisively push through with your claims.

3. Request for a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge - you will have a good chance to win your case. Your case will have the benefit of being reviewed by a Judge and you can testify about your situation.

Bear in mind that it is best to understand and be well prepared for everything before filing for a Social Security Disability claim. You will do well to increase your probability at gaining your rightful benefits.

By: Lala C. Ballatan
For more information about social security disability claims, visit our Los Angeles Social Security Law Attorneys website.

An affirmative defense is defined as a fact or a set of facts that defeat a claim, even if the facts supporting the claim are true. When a plaintiff files a complaint in a civil or criminal court order to get relief from the court, the defendant can make the claim void by asserting and proving that there are other factors affecting the claim. These could be negligence or the expiry of statute of limitations. In the affirmative defense clause that comes under the Californian lemon law, a defendant can avail of the same if certain conditions are satisfied or proven.

Flaws caused by illegal or unreasonable use of a motor vehicle, following sale or lease are the main reasons behind this kind of defense strategy. This means that if the person availing of this law has abused or misused the vehicle in any way, then the vehicle is not considered to be a lemon and thus cannot come under the relief provided by the law.

Affirmative defenses, in general, are made to protect the defendant from fraudulent claims. Fraudulent claims include damages due to the negligence, misuse or unreasonable use by the person seeking relief.

This may include damage caused due to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Damage caused due to accidents, that are a result of illegal driving, is also considered as negligent driving. "Unreasonable use" is defined as using the vehicle without following the proper guidelines and terms and conditions. These include speed limits, proper maintenance and other mandatory guidelines that are crucial to the efficient working of the vehicle.

An affirmative defense usually acts against the plaintiff. It is important to prove that the damage caused was not due to the negligence of the owner, in order to make the defense void.

By: Richard Romando
California Lemon Law provides detailed information on California Lemon Law, California Computer Lemon Law, California Boat Lemon Law, California Lemon Law Attorneys and more. California Lemon Law is affiliated with Boat Lemon Laws.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Information directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

For good, a California court has upheld the new regulations which will prohibit insurance companies from basing their rates on ZIP codes. Judge Loren E. McMaster of the Sacramento Superior Court has decided in favor of consumers in the courts' decision on the lawsuit which was filed by the insurance industry. This case is one which disputes the adoption of a new insurance regulation which will benefit good drivers no matter what their ZIP code is. The court ruled that insurance companies should base insurance premiums on the driving records and not primarily on their ZIP code, marital status or other factors.

Mark Savage, Senior Attorney for Consumers Union, stated that the "ruling confirms what we have known all along". Savage added further that "California's new auto insurance regulations are fair and will benefit good drivers throughout the state. Good drivers will get a break on their premiums and will be protected from discrimination based on their ZIP code".

The regulation, since it was implemented in August of last year has been of great help to car owners. Since the regulation requires insurance companies to file new regulation with regard to their rates, California drivers have saved significantly. The Department of Insurance has stated that with the new regulation, insurance premiums were cut down by as much as $1.01 billion since the start of the implementation of the said regulation. This saving can be likened to the cutback enjoyed by a driver if he opts for an EBC pad for the brake system of his car.

The verdict of Judge McMaster lay to rest the lawsuit filed by the insurance industry. In his decision, he cited that the regulation adopted by Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi is not "arbitrary or capricious". This is contrary to what the American Insurance Association has sustained. As a matter of fact, Judge McMaster found out that the regulation is consistent with the Proposition 103 which was passed by California voters in 1988. Proposition 103 stated that insurance companies are required to base their premium rates on three factors. These factors are: the policyholder's driving safety record, annual miles driven, and years of driving experience. The said proposition also stated that other factors such as ZIP code of the driver must be given less weight in the determination of auto rates.

Consumers Union, which took the lead in the intervention in the trial, is also the same institution which urged then Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi to make a regulation that will be necessary in the implementation of Proposition 103. The institution has gone through the three years of public hearings presented report after report which show that basing auto rates on ZIP codes is not helping and even hurts good divers.

In one of their reports, the Consumers Union presented facts that insurance companies charge drivers from small communities significantly more than what they charge for good drivers living in selected suburban and urban communities. Another discrimination found out by the Union is that insurers charge more from drivers who live in areas which are predominantly African American or Latino communities.

After the three years of public hearings and the amount of reports shown by the Consumers Union, Garamendi arrived at the conclusion that using ZIP codes as the main factor which determines auto rates were unfair and arbitrary. With these conclusions, the Insurance Commission adopted the regulation which forbids insurance companies from basing their premium rates on the ZIP codes of drivers. This move on the part of the agency is not a welcome issue for insurance companies hence they filed the lawsuit to try to make the regulation void.

By: Anthony Fontanelle
Anthony Fontanelle is a 35-year-old automotive buff who grew up in the Windy City. He does freelance work for an automotive magazine when he is not busy customizing cars in his shop.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

Most often when people think about false imprisonment, they think about people being falsely arrested by the police. Most people don’t know that non-police officers can be liable for false imprisonment under many different circumstances.

The purpose of this article is to give a brief synopsis of the civil tort of false imprisonment in the state of California.

A basic definition of civil false imprisonment is; “a person intentionally holding another person within the bounds of a fixed area, without the consent of the person being held, and without a privilege that would excuse the conduct.”

For instance, let’s say that a man locks a woman in a room without her permission. This would be a classic case of civil false imprisonment.

Another example would be a person holding something of value to another person with the intent to make them stay in a certain place, and without the consent of the person whose valuables are being held.

Civil false imprisonment could also include one person grabbing onto another person without their consent, and holding them so that they cannot leave.

There are many other examples of false imprisonment that I can provide, however, the above examples are meant to give you an idea of what the civil tort of false imprisonment is in the state of California.

One key element of the civil tort of false imprisonment is that the person being held must reasonably believe that they cannot leave. Reasonable is a legal term of art used in the legal world. What reasonable basically means is: what would a reasonable prudent person do or believe under similar circumstances.

Another key element of the tort of false imprisonment is that the person doing the imprisoning, must not have a privilege to do so.

Examples of privileges that would allow a person to hold another person within the bounds of a fixed area are: shopkeepers who are investigating shoplifting at a store; civilians who have witnessed a felony, and place the person who committed a felony under citizen’s arrests; or police officers who have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

As with other intentional torts, victims of false imprisonment are entitled to not only compensatory damages, but they may also recover punitive damages. (Punishment)

By Norman Gregory Fernandez, ESQ. Copyright 2006

By: Norman Fernandez
Norman Gregory Fernandez is a California lawyer who handles many types of legal matters. You can reach him through his website at http://www.norman-law.com.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

In modern times many couples have children when they are not married. Problems can arise with respect to Child Custody, Visitation, and Child Support when these couples break off the relationship.

In a perfect world the mother and the father are amicable in such a situation, and do what is in the child or children’s best interest. However, it is much safer, and highly recommended, that you obtain Court orders with respect to custody, visitation, and support issues, so that the mother and father each know their respective rights and obligations, and so that there are no ambiguities regarding the same.

This article will discuss the issue of children who are born out of wedlock from both the mother and the father’s prospective to give you a general understanding of the law in California regarding children born out of wedlock.

The Mother’s Prospective

The mother of a child that is born out of wedlock has a unique advantage in that she does not normally have to prove that the child is hers. If hospital records indicate that a female has given birth to a child, and the birth certificate that is issued upon the birth of a child indicates that the female gave birth to the child, than there is usually no issue with the mother showing that she is the paternal mother.

The mother of a child born out of wedlock will automatically be entitled to full custody of a child absent a Court order indicating otherwise.

She may give the father visitation if she so chooses, or she can deny visitation to the father absent a Court order.

All minor children in California have a right to receive child support pursuant to a statutory guideline. (The subject of Child Support will be covered in a forthcoming separate article). If the mother of a child who is born out of wedlock wants to obtain child support from the father, she will have to file and serve a Petition to Establish Parentage on the father, and an Order to Show Cause for child support with the appropriate Court.

If the mother is on welfare or Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the District Attorney in the county in which the mother resides will ordinarily aid in this process so that the County gets reimbursed for the aid that is being provided to the mother by the County.

If a father voluntarily accepts paternity, than the Court will decide each party’s rights to custody, visitation, and child support based upon the facts in the case. If the father denies that he is the father, he may request that a DNA test be done to determine whether he is the father. Once this process is completed than the Court will determine each party’s rights.

If a mother is not sure who the real father of a child is, she will have to file a Petition to Establish Parentage on each potential father.

The Court will ordinarily allow the father visitation or custody rights to the child unless it can be shown that it is not in the best interest of the child for the father to have such rights.

The Father’s Prospective

The father of a child born out of wedlock has no rights to Custody, Visitation, or Child Support unless they obtain a Court order for the same.

If a father wants to have rights to custody, visitation, or child support for a child born out of wedlock, the will have to file a Petition to Establish Parentage, and an Order to Show Cause for Custody, Visitation, and/or Support.

The mother of the child may or may not agree that the father is the true father of the child. Either party may request that a DNA test be done to prove whether or not the father is the paternal father of a child.

Once the Court determines paternity, the Court will than look at many factors with respect to rights to Custody, Visitation, and Support.

The Court will ordinarily allow the father visitation or custody rights to the child unless it can be shown that it is not in the best interest of the child for the father to have such rights.

The Mother and Father’s Prospective as a Whole

The Court will always try to determine what is in the children’s best interest when determining who will have Custody and Visitation rights to a child or children. This can be a long and expensive process if litigated. It is recommended that a Mother and Father try to informally work out a Custody and Visitation plan for a child or children, and then get a Court Order which reflects the agreement of the mother and father.

If you cannot informally work it out than the Court will decide the issue for you.

Support of the child or children will be determined by the Court using a statutory formula which is based on both parties income, the percentage of time each person has with the child or children, and other factors.

It is always recommended that you retain a lawyer in these types of cases. Only a fool has herself or himself for a client.

You can check out our family law website at divorce-legal.net for more general family law information.

© 2007

By: Norman Fernandez
Norman Gregory Fernandez is a California lawyer who handles many types of legal matters. You can reach him through his website at http://www.norman-law.com.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.